If only one of the many discoveries you are alluding to were allowed to be officially accepted as genuine, it would ruin everything built around the
false theories, which were built for reasons that had little to do with science and more to do with social manipulation and control. How long have
people heard that when Charles Darwin brought forth the theory of evolution, religion was doomed, or splintered or something to that effect? As if it
made God obsolete. (Perhaps that was the goal all along, so things would just be easier. Morals were so inconvenient, after all.)

We are told this is what happened, but many other things happened that are relevant. Artifacts like Piltdown man were manufactured, presumably to
make the "discovers" rich and famous, but we must realize that this gave a big boost to the theory of evolution.
If the science was so solid/compelling, why would they need to manufacture evidence? Where was their faith in the theory of evolution itself?

Obviously nowhere. We still have no conclusive proof, and the "missing link" is still the Holy Grail of evolution theorists. All the apes are
still here, unevolved or "failed humans"? What about alligators? No improvement necessary, I suppose.

and why isn't evolution saving us all, humans and creatures, from our destructive ways? Why would inherently destructive creatures be selected for
survival? Don't they typically live alone (predator-style) or use up all the resources, thereby destroying any semblance of social groups?

Nature, if it alone were in charge, would be much more efficient than that, if it were able to create and produce all this diversity "randomly".

Furthermore, if evolution is really the answer to it all, then we should do nothing. It will take care of things just as it always has.

Basically, the answer to all these questions is that our society- the way define ourselves and the way TPTB want us to think, allows for no
flexibility in this domain unless 100% irrefutable, studiable, and explainable evidence is provided.

MSM is controlled by TPTB- anybody can see this. Anything that challenges the way they want us to think is going to at least ignored, if not de-bunked
in the most efficient, believable way possible. They have built their tower of power on a very solid base- If you remove the base, the tower falls
down.

Scientists don't like accepting these facts because the laws of science (i.e. evidence, objectability, hypothesis, ect.) don't allow for this kind
of information to be accepted unless it can easily be studied and proven to be true in a lab. The laws of science don't allow for anything to exist
as reality unless it is physically there, and you can study it.

Many prominent scientists have built there entire reputation around certain theories and view-points, and to challenge these prominent positions would
be to challenge the entire establishment itself. Although I think there is very little outside influence on the academic branch of society, there is
still power, and power struggles.

If someone has built an entire respectable career around a certain theory, and it is considered to be the truth, you are going to need a wrecking
ball- not a hammer and chisel- to knock down the building. While others may notice that it is being chiseled away, the base remains; so does the
credibility.

2 things need to happen for this to change, either

A) We change the way society works and the way we view reality,

or

B) We find a wrecking ball to blow apart the building.

Think of religion- Unless you provide absolute, irefutable, undeniable proof that is strong enough to shatter a belief, you are going to fail; even if
it is obvious that your evidence should be strong enough to convince people otherwise.

Too many people believe in society the same way they believe in their faith. They have come to believe that the current way we think of our world is
the best way, and any kind of challenge or change to that would throw us into chaos.

Originally posted by masonicon
Why there is Absolute Silence in Mainstream Media Everytime There's solid Evidences that proves some Ancient technologies are Better than Any Current
Technologies?
etc etc snipped

Originally posted by Monts
Basically, the answer to all these questions is that our society- the way define ourselves and the way TPTB want us to think, allows for no
flexibility in this domain unless 100% irrefutable, studiable, and explainable evidence is provided.

That's is not necessarily true.

Science has us believe Tons of things that even they don't have 100% irrefutable, studiable, and explainable evidence for.

They are making stuff up off he top of their heads to explain observations they cannot account for and push the public believe that these things are
fact.

Therefore my answer to the Op is all about control of the masses and keeping that control. When you believe what they tell you to believe they have
control. When you refuse to believe what they tell you to believe, in favor of something you believe to be true, they lose control.

In the end TRUTH has very little to do with anything. It's all about Control.

It all *seems* to be a struggle to keep people open-minded towards evolution theory long enough to get some solid proof. Since people already
believed the Bible, and had long believed in God or gods long before the Age of Reason, strong measures had to be taken to shake their minds open to
other possibilities. People still feared going to hell in those days. This theory was strong enough to help them let go of that fear, happily.

Although there was support for the theory, proof was still manufactured in the form of Piltdown Man and others. This was proof one could hold in the
hand, feel, and see, not words on a page from a very old book. It was easier to let go of religion if one could hold on to evidence. And why
wouldn't someone believe that evidence? People began to have more and more respect for science, since it has many positive effects on sick people,
crop yields, etc. It is something we can interact with and change our destiny with.

The evolution theory, just like the creationist theory, holds a lot of weight to a lot of people. If there is no actual fossil proof, then other
proofs can be brought forward, and due to the "lack" of evidence for Biblical stories, evolution theory pulls ahead.

I'm speaking of proofs that life does have the capacity to adapt and change, easily observable, but not entire proof of mankind's origins.
Wouldn't the whole issue be academic by now if we had solid proof? And wouldn't that proof be around to find?

The OP mentions artifacts and discoveries which appear to have been suppressed. In my own research, Internet and real-world, these appear to be
artifacts that would prove that giants, technology, and an incredibly long period of human existence were all true events in history, backed up by a
long list of supporting fossils, tools, burials in North America, early alien sightings, etc. Lots of things that evolution theory hasn't got a full
story for, but the Bible does. Its original language refers to "mighty ones" and "the terrible ones," in Isaiah, a prophetic book dealing with
Armageddon. It mentions the prey of these terrible ones being taken back and rescued from them. The language allows for that and is not specific
about who these terrible ones actually are, unusual for the Bible, which often names specific nationalities or tribes in its prophecies. It refers to
a strong delusion, which could be demonic forces masquerading as aliens.

Uncomfortable silence? I refer you to the ATS thread "Me and "Them," in the Aliens and Ufos forum. This man's story is compelling and he's not
the only one. I feel we should open our minds to this possibility and examine it logically, as he does, and revisit our own theories.

It's a battle for our minds, but when theories are taught solely as truth, that's where things get sticky. Science itself doesn't disallow a
theory because it's politically incorrect, but people who run science and the media often do. I hope we won't make that mistake here on ATS.

I don't see an actual conspiracy here, its more disorganized stupidity.
Mostly its the result of the system of science that has evolved (

) over time with the peer review and tenure processes.
Peer review means others that understand and 'qualify' on the topic have to give at least some agreement, how do you find those people for
revolutionary theories?
Tenure and publishing keeps the science guys paid, many have to go along with the game to keep feeding their families ...

Well its all very complex but basically rock the boat and you are out.

A second factor is very compartmentalized nature of science, things have gotten so complex that an expert in more than one narrow field is rare, new
and better things will/have been found crossing boundries. Think about it: once upon a time physics and philosophy were the same subject.

Because no one has ever demonstrated these alternative technologies in a controlled environment, showing they work.

That's why. Don't have a go at science for being science. Have a go at fraudsters for being fraudsters. Science is a methodology, not an
organisation.

1. Because there's no proof these ancient technologies even exist, let alone are better than their modern equivalents

2. Because nothing has been demonstrated that can overcome limitations of current technology

3. Science doesn't. Science rejoices, and learns more. The Coelacanth is a great example of that.

4. They don't. There's no evidence for that.

5. That hasn't happened.

Just because people claim things doesn't make them true. We've got to use critical thinking and a rational approach when evaluating new
discoveries. It seems the new discoveries you are referring to didn't pass muster when it comes to real science. Again - don't attack science,
attack snake oil salesmen.

Science has owned by Giant Corporations that don't interested by Organic Agriculture, Free Energy, Good nutrition and sanitation for improving health
instead Vaccine and Antibiotics and almost everything that Giant Corporations are not fan of are labeled as Pseudoscience.

Because no one has ever demonstrated these alternative technologies in a controlled environment, showing they work.

That's why. Don't have a go at science for being science. Have a go at fraudsters for being fraudsters. Science is a methodology, not an
organisation.

1. Because there's no proof these ancient technologies even exist, let alone are better than their modern equivalents

2. Because nothing has been demonstrated that can overcome limitations of current technology

3. Science doesn't. Science rejoices, and learns more. The Coelacanth is a great example of that.

4. They don't. There's no evidence for that.

5. That hasn't happened.

Just because people claim things doesn't make them true. We've got to use critical thinking and a rational approach when evaluating new
discoveries. It seems the new discoveries you are referring to didn't pass muster when it comes to real science. Again - don't attack science,
attack snake oil salesmen.

We are told this is what happened, but many other things happened that are relevant. Artifacts like Piltdown man were manufactured, presumably to make
the "discovers" rich and famous, but we must realize that this gave a big boost to the theory of evolution. If the science was so solid/compelling,
why would they need to manufacture evidence? Where was their faith in the theory of evolution itself?

The Piltdown defrauders had no interest in boosting public support for evolution, but may have been interested in discrediting it. They were merely
out for personal aggrandizement at the expense of two men they thought needed to be taken down a peg. They were practical jokers whose joke got out of
hand. There is evidence that the hoaxer wanted the fraud to be found out much earlier than it did, but there was a war on (WWI) after all, and there
were other things to concentrate on.

In short is wasn't 'Evolutionists' that perpetrated the fraud; it was an individual with an axe to grind against other individuals.

Using the Piltdown fraud as an argument against evolution is even more silly than using the Nigerian internet fraudsters as proof that the Nigerian
Government is involved in a plot to steal your first born daughter.

Just estimating a guess here, but couldn't the reason be that TPTB and therefore the mass media are just reporting the stories that would benefit
them? For example, the technologies we have in our PCs right now (processors, memory, storage, etc), has probably been discovered 5-10 years
prior to their release for public use and knowledge.

All I'm saying, once they hear about a new invention, they could possibly shut it off the public ear by not allowing the media to report it through
to us, and then they find ways to profit off the discovery before we learn about it.

You are talking about massive conspiracies between manufacturing companies across the globes and every single government and body that oversees said
companies all without any evidence.

Sure the technology in our computers is years old before we get it, but that's because after the technology has first being created it has to be
brought to the market, which takes time and lots of money.

The paranoia in this thread is simply staggering. No wonder the western world is dumbing itself down if this is the level of critical thought many
are happy with. Disgusting.

Alasian is exactly right. A close family fried has written and developed programming software for many major technological platforms, mobile
communication companies and the US Military. He told me ten years ago about things that are just now being released to the public in cell phone arena;
the advancement of technology is staggering. The average person cannot comprehend enough to realize how advanced technology actually is right now. I
don’t believe it is a conspiracy that is fueling the cover-up and slow trickle down release of these products into the mainstream market as much as
it is in corporate interest and national security. The government wants the first stab at new technologies not only to advance its interests but to
develop regulatory controls on its use. Not very many people talk about it that work in advanced technology fields because it is not worth getting
sued, losing your job and possibly going to jail for beaching a confidentiality agreement or even worse violating a trust position with the government
so that someone on ATS will be vindicated with some proof.

Alasian is exactly right. A close family fried has written and developed programming software for many major technological platforms, mobile
communication companies and the US Military. He told me ten years ago about things that are just now being released to the public in cell phone arena;
the advancement of technology is staggering. The average person cannot comprehend enough to realize how advanced technology actually is right now. I
don’t believe it is a conspiracy that is fueling the cover-up and slow trickle down release of these products into the mainstream market as much as
it is in corporate interest and national security. The government wants the first stab at new technologies not only to advance its interests but to
develop regulatory controls on its use. Not very many people talk about it that work in advanced technology fields because it is not worth getting
sued, losing your job and possibly going to jail for beaching a confidentiality agreement or even worse violating a trust position with the government
so that someone on ATS will be vindicated with some proof.

If what I said is not common knowledge to you; you should crawl out from the rock you live under take a look around. Technology is obviously being
held back and trickled into the market slowly to maximize profits for companies developing it. If you’re looking for proof of things this obvious on
ATS you must be blind or wearing blinders. Don't mean to sound angry it's just the way I write. Have you ever heard of price fixing? I am sure
honest law binding companies would never do that either. Sorry I even wrote anything since there is so much proof floating around ATS anyways.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.